Key clinical point: All multiple manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) negatively affect quality of life (QoL), with dactylitis, peripheral joint disease, and psoriasis impairing functional status, whereas joint, skin, and periarticular symptoms independently impair work productivity.

Major finding: Presence vs absence of enthesitis, dactylitis, inflammatory back pain, and peripheral joint involvement was associated with worse QoL and self-rated health (all P < .05), whereas increasing number of affected joints and greater body surface area involvement significantly correlated with poorer functional state and greater work productivity impairment (all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional observational study including 2222 patients with physician-confirmed diagnosis of PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants from, serving as a consultant for, being an employee of, or owning shares in different sources.

Source: Walsh JA et al. Impact of key manifestations of psoriatic arthritis on patient quality of life, functional status, and work productivity: Findings from a real-world study in the United States and Europe. Joint Bone Spine. 2023;105534 (Jan 25). Doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2023.105534

Key clinical point: All multiple manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) negatively affect quality of life (QoL), with dactylitis, peripheral joint disease, and psoriasis impairing functional status, whereas joint, skin, and periarticular symptoms independently impair work productivity.

Major finding: Presence vs absence of enthesitis, dactylitis, inflammatory back pain, and peripheral joint involvement was associated with worse QoL and self-rated health (all P < .05), whereas increasing number of affected joints and greater body surface area involvement significantly correlated with poorer functional state and greater work productivity impairment (all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional observational study including 2222 patients with physician-confirmed diagnosis of PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants from, serving as a consultant for, being an employee of, or owning shares in different sources.

Source: Walsh JA et al. Impact of key manifestations of psoriatic arthritis on patient quality of life, functional status, and work productivity: Findings from a real-world study in the United States and Europe. Joint Bone Spine. 2023;105534 (Jan 25). Doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2023.105534

Key clinical point: All multiple manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) negatively affect quality of life (QoL), with dactylitis, peripheral joint disease, and psoriasis impairing functional status, whereas joint, skin, and periarticular symptoms independently impair work productivity.

Major finding: Presence vs absence of enthesitis, dactylitis, inflammatory back pain, and peripheral joint involvement was associated with worse QoL and self-rated health (all P < .05), whereas increasing number of affected joints and greater body surface area involvement significantly correlated with poorer functional state and greater work productivity impairment (all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional observational study including 2222 patients with physician-confirmed diagnosis of PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants from, serving as a consultant for, being an employee of, or owning shares in different sources.

Source: Walsh JA et al. Impact of key manifestations of psoriatic arthritis on patient quality of life, functional status, and work productivity: Findings from a real-world study in the United States and Europe. Joint Bone Spine. 2023;105534 (Jan 25). Doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2023.105534

Key clinical point:  Patients with psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a greater comorbidity burden compared with those with psoriasis alone, which negatively impacted treatment persistence.

Major finding: Among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA vs psoriasis alone had higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1.52; 95% CI 1.16-1.97), hypertension (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.27-1.89), and obesity (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.1-1.61), and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation (hazard ratio 1.98; P < .0001).

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen-Cilag Ltd. W Tillett and A Ogdie declared receiving fees and grants or research support from various sources, including Janssen. A Passey and P Gorecki declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag Ltd.

Source: Tillett W et al. Impact of psoriatic arthritis and comorbidities on ustekinumab outcomes in psoriasis: A retrospective, observational BADBIR cohort study. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002533 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002533

Key clinical point:  Patients with psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a greater comorbidity burden compared with those with psoriasis alone, which negatively impacted treatment persistence.

Major finding: Among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA vs psoriasis alone had higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1.52; 95% CI 1.16-1.97), hypertension (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.27-1.89), and obesity (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.1-1.61), and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation (hazard ratio 1.98; P < .0001).

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen-Cilag Ltd. W Tillett and A Ogdie declared receiving fees and grants or research support from various sources, including Janssen. A Passey and P Gorecki declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag Ltd.

Source: Tillett W et al. Impact of psoriatic arthritis and comorbidities on ustekinumab outcomes in psoriasis: A retrospective, observational BADBIR cohort study. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002533 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002533

Key clinical point:  Patients with psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a greater comorbidity burden compared with those with psoriasis alone, which negatively impacted treatment persistence.

Major finding: Among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA vs psoriasis alone had higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1.52; 95% CI 1.16-1.97), hypertension (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.27-1.89), and obesity (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.1-1.61), and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation (hazard ratio 1.98; P < .0001).

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen-Cilag Ltd. W Tillett and A Ogdie declared receiving fees and grants or research support from various sources, including Janssen. A Passey and P Gorecki declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag Ltd.

Source: Tillett W et al. Impact of psoriatic arthritis and comorbidities on ustekinumab outcomes in psoriasis: A retrospective, observational BADBIR cohort study. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002533 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002533

Key clinical point: Nailfold capillaroscopy (NC) outcomes could not conclusively differentiate psoriasis from psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: In addition to altered morphology, the density of capillaries at the nailfold was significantly lower in patients with psoriasis (standardized group difference [SMD] −0.91; P  =  .0058; area under curve [AUC] 0.740) and PsA (SMD −1.22; P  =  .0432; AUC, 0.806) compared with control individuals; however, no NC outcomes conclusively differentiated between psoriasis and PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 studies investigating NC as a diagnostic tool for psoriasis or  PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lazar LT et al. Nailfold capillaroscopy as diagnostic test in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review. Microvasc Res. 2023;147:104476 (Jan 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2023.104476

Key clinical point: Nailfold capillaroscopy (NC) outcomes could not conclusively differentiate psoriasis from psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: In addition to altered morphology, the density of capillaries at the nailfold was significantly lower in patients with psoriasis (standardized group difference [SMD] −0.91; P  =  .0058; area under curve [AUC] 0.740) and PsA (SMD −1.22; P  =  .0432; AUC, 0.806) compared with control individuals; however, no NC outcomes conclusively differentiated between psoriasis and PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 studies investigating NC as a diagnostic tool for psoriasis or  PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lazar LT et al. Nailfold capillaroscopy as diagnostic test in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review. Microvasc Res. 2023;147:104476 (Jan 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2023.104476

Key clinical point: Nailfold capillaroscopy (NC) outcomes could not conclusively differentiate psoriasis from psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: In addition to altered morphology, the density of capillaries at the nailfold was significantly lower in patients with psoriasis (standardized group difference [SMD] −0.91; P  =  .0058; area under curve [AUC] 0.740) and PsA (SMD −1.22; P  =  .0432; AUC, 0.806) compared with control individuals; however, no NC outcomes conclusively differentiated between psoriasis and PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 studies investigating NC as a diagnostic tool for psoriasis or  PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lazar LT et al. Nailfold capillaroscopy as diagnostic test in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review. Microvasc Res. 2023;147:104476 (Jan 16). Doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2023.104476

Key clinical point: Regular assessment of bone mineral density and initiation of primary prevention should be considered in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as they are predisposed to falls and fractures because of reduced bone density, particularly those with late-onset psoriasis involving scalp.

Major finding: Patients with PsA were at a significantly higher risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis (odds ratio [OR] 21.9; CI 7.1-67.7) and prevalent fractures (OR 3.42; P  =  .002) compared with control individuals, with scalp involvement (P  =  .0049) and late onset of psoriasis (P  =  .029) being significantly associated with greater number of prevalent fractures.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 61 patients with PsA and 69 age-matched control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Halasi A et al. Psoriatic arthritis and its special features predispose not only for osteoporosis but also for fractures and falls. J Dermatol. 2023 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.16710

Key clinical point: Regular assessment of bone mineral density and initiation of primary prevention should be considered in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as they are predisposed to falls and fractures because of reduced bone density, particularly those with late-onset psoriasis involving scalp.

Major finding: Patients with PsA were at a significantly higher risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis (odds ratio [OR] 21.9; CI 7.1-67.7) and prevalent fractures (OR 3.42; P  =  .002) compared with control individuals, with scalp involvement (P  =  .0049) and late onset of psoriasis (P  =  .029) being significantly associated with greater number of prevalent fractures.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 61 patients with PsA and 69 age-matched control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Halasi A et al. Psoriatic arthritis and its special features predispose not only for osteoporosis but also for fractures and falls. J Dermatol. 2023 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.16710

Key clinical point: Regular assessment of bone mineral density and initiation of primary prevention should be considered in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as they are predisposed to falls and fractures because of reduced bone density, particularly those with late-onset psoriasis involving scalp.

Major finding: Patients with PsA were at a significantly higher risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis (odds ratio [OR] 21.9; CI 7.1-67.7) and prevalent fractures (OR 3.42; P  =  .002) compared with control individuals, with scalp involvement (P  =  .0049) and late onset of psoriasis (P  =  .029) being significantly associated with greater number of prevalent fractures.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 61 patients with PsA and 69 age-matched control individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Halasi A et al. Psoriatic arthritis and its special features predispose not only for osteoporosis but also for fractures and falls. J Dermatol. 2023 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.16710

I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.

At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.

Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.

We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.

New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.

Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”

I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
 

Barriers to care

Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.

What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”

The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.

All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.

In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.

Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.

The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.

Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
 

Multiple stakeholders

Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.

There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.

There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.

There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.

Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.

Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.

It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.

The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.

If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.

At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.

Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.

We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.

New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.

Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”

I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
 

Barriers to care

Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.

What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”

The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.

All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.

In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.

Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.

The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.

Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
 

Multiple stakeholders

Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.

There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.

There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.

There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.

Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.

Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.

It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.

The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.

If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.

At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.

Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.

We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.

New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.

Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”

I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
 

Barriers to care

Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.

What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”

The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.

All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.

In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.

Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.

The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.

Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
 

Multiple stakeholders

Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.

There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.

There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.

There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.

Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.

Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.

It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.

The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.

If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: A dose of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) demonstrated a favorable and consistent safety profile for up to 2 years in both tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi)-naive and TNFi-experienced patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: In TNFi-naive vs TNFi-experienced patients receiving guselkumab, adverse events rates were consistent through 24 weeks (220.8/100 person-years [PY] vs 251.6/100 PY) and remained low through 2 years (139.69/100 PY vs 174.0/100 PY).

Study details: This pooled safety analysis of four phase 2/3 trials included 1554 TNFi-naive and TNFi-experienced patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab Q4W or Q8W for ≤2 years or placebo with a crossover at week 24 to guselkumab Q4W or Q8W.

Disclosures: The four trials were funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. Several authors reported ties with Janssen and other sources.

Source: Rahman P et al. Safety of guselkumab with and without prior TNF-α inhibitor treatment: Pooled results across four studies in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2023 (Jan 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220928

Key clinical point: A dose of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) demonstrated a favorable and consistent safety profile for up to 2 years in both tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi)-naive and TNFi-experienced patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: In TNFi-naive vs TNFi-experienced patients receiving guselkumab, adverse events rates were consistent through 24 weeks (220.8/100 person-years [PY] vs 251.6/100 PY) and remained low through 2 years (139.69/100 PY vs 174.0/100 PY).

Study details: This pooled safety analysis of four phase 2/3 trials included 1554 TNFi-naive and TNFi-experienced patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab Q4W or Q8W for ≤2 years or placebo with a crossover at week 24 to guselkumab Q4W or Q8W.

Disclosures: The four trials were funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. Several authors reported ties with Janssen and other sources.

Source: Rahman P et al. Safety of guselkumab with and without prior TNF-α inhibitor treatment: Pooled results across four studies in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2023 (Jan 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220928

Key clinical point: A dose of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) demonstrated a favorable and consistent safety profile for up to 2 years in both tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi)-naive and TNFi-experienced patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: In TNFi-naive vs TNFi-experienced patients receiving guselkumab, adverse events rates were consistent through 24 weeks (220.8/100 person-years [PY] vs 251.6/100 PY) and remained low through 2 years (139.69/100 PY vs 174.0/100 PY).

Study details: This pooled safety analysis of four phase 2/3 trials included 1554 TNFi-naive and TNFi-experienced patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab Q4W or Q8W for ≤2 years or placebo with a crossover at week 24 to guselkumab Q4W or Q8W.

Disclosures: The four trials were funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. Several authors reported ties with Janssen and other sources.

Source: Rahman P et al. Safety of guselkumab with and without prior TNF-α inhibitor treatment: Pooled results across four studies in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2023 (Jan 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220928

When administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, secukinumab was effective at improving signs and symptoms of moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in adults up to 52 weeks, results from two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed.

The findings build on week 16 data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS, and were presented at the 2022 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. In those studies, at 16 weeks, 42%-46% of patients achieved an HS Clinical Response (HiSCR) – the primary outcome measure in both trials. For the most recent analysis, which was published in The Lancet, investigators found that, at 52 weeks, 56.4% of patients in SUNSHINE and 65% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks achieved a HiSCR, compared with 56.3% of patients in SUNSHINE and 62.2% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks.

“This is great news for people with HS: it improves our knowledge about how to best treat patients today and leads us to new areas that will help us treat them even better in the future,” Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, the lead investigator for both trials, said in an interview. “Dermatologists have been using biologics for decades. This data provides clinicians with information they can use to easily expand their HS management repertoire to include secukinumab.”

To date, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab is the only approved biologic therapy approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS, in people aged 12 years and older.

The two trials were conducted in 40 countries, with SUNSHINE enrolling 541 patients, and SUNRISE enrolling 543. Patients in each study were randomized to one of three experimental arms: secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks after five weekly loading doses; secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks after five weekly loading doses; placebo dose every 2 weeks after five weekly placebo doses. The mean age was 37 years, about 55% were female, and about 76% were White (about 9% were Black and about 10% were Asian). Dr. Kimball, investigator at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors observed that the group that received secukinumab every 4 weeks did not meet the primary endpoint in the SUNSHINE trial, but it was met in the SUNRISE trial. “Research and subgroup analyses are required and might improve our understanding of the effect of patient characteristics on treatment response and further refine the dosing recommendations for different populations,” they wrote.

In a pooled analysis, 55.2% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks had a reduction in pain as measured by the Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, compared with 53% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The most common adverse events up to week 16 in both trials were headache, nasopharyngitis, and hidradenitis; no deaths occurred.

“One limitation of most studies in HS is that the placebo-controlled period is short, so the data obtained after that time is harder to interpret,” Dr. Kimball said in an interview. “In my experience, optimizing treatment can take almost a year and I hope we will see longer controlled periods in future studies.” Another limitation of the studies she acknowledged was a modest imbalance with respect to disease severity between the treatment groups at baseline. “It was a little surprising that some imbalances in the characteristics of randomized subjects in different arms of the study impacted efficacy levels,” she said. “We’ll need to continue to identify how to match patients and dosing regimens to get the best results.”

According to a press release from Novartis, trial results have been submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the United States, and decisions are expected in 2023. If approved, secukinumab will be the first and only IL-17 inhibitor for the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, described HS as “an extraordinarily disabling, painful, deforming condition for which we only have one [Food and Drug Administration]–approved systemic therapy, requiring us to wear our ‘off-label bandit’ name tags proudly to tackle therapeutic challenges.

“Anecdotally,” he said, “we dabble with off-label biologics indicated for psoriasis in this setting, though limitations exist ranging from lack of large-scale clinical data to the recurring theme that psoriasis dosing typically doesn’t cut it, making access to said medications even more difficult. Investigators in this study addresses both gaps very effectively, and I for one welcome the implications and hopeful regulatory impact with open arms.”

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Kimball disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Sanova, Pfizer, Novartis, and other companies.

When administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, secukinumab was effective at improving signs and symptoms of moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in adults up to 52 weeks, results from two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed.

The findings build on week 16 data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS, and were presented at the 2022 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. In those studies, at 16 weeks, 42%-46% of patients achieved an HS Clinical Response (HiSCR) – the primary outcome measure in both trials. For the most recent analysis, which was published in The Lancet, investigators found that, at 52 weeks, 56.4% of patients in SUNSHINE and 65% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks achieved a HiSCR, compared with 56.3% of patients in SUNSHINE and 62.2% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks.

“This is great news for people with HS: it improves our knowledge about how to best treat patients today and leads us to new areas that will help us treat them even better in the future,” Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, the lead investigator for both trials, said in an interview. “Dermatologists have been using biologics for decades. This data provides clinicians with information they can use to easily expand their HS management repertoire to include secukinumab.”

To date, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab is the only approved biologic therapy approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS, in people aged 12 years and older.

The two trials were conducted in 40 countries, with SUNSHINE enrolling 541 patients, and SUNRISE enrolling 543. Patients in each study were randomized to one of three experimental arms: secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks after five weekly loading doses; secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks after five weekly loading doses; placebo dose every 2 weeks after five weekly placebo doses. The mean age was 37 years, about 55% were female, and about 76% were White (about 9% were Black and about 10% were Asian). Dr. Kimball, investigator at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors observed that the group that received secukinumab every 4 weeks did not meet the primary endpoint in the SUNSHINE trial, but it was met in the SUNRISE trial. “Research and subgroup analyses are required and might improve our understanding of the effect of patient characteristics on treatment response and further refine the dosing recommendations for different populations,” they wrote.

In a pooled analysis, 55.2% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks had a reduction in pain as measured by the Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, compared with 53% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The most common adverse events up to week 16 in both trials were headache, nasopharyngitis, and hidradenitis; no deaths occurred.

“One limitation of most studies in HS is that the placebo-controlled period is short, so the data obtained after that time is harder to interpret,” Dr. Kimball said in an interview. “In my experience, optimizing treatment can take almost a year and I hope we will see longer controlled periods in future studies.” Another limitation of the studies she acknowledged was a modest imbalance with respect to disease severity between the treatment groups at baseline. “It was a little surprising that some imbalances in the characteristics of randomized subjects in different arms of the study impacted efficacy levels,” she said. “We’ll need to continue to identify how to match patients and dosing regimens to get the best results.”

According to a press release from Novartis, trial results have been submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the United States, and decisions are expected in 2023. If approved, secukinumab will be the first and only IL-17 inhibitor for the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, described HS as “an extraordinarily disabling, painful, deforming condition for which we only have one [Food and Drug Administration]–approved systemic therapy, requiring us to wear our ‘off-label bandit’ name tags proudly to tackle therapeutic challenges.

“Anecdotally,” he said, “we dabble with off-label biologics indicated for psoriasis in this setting, though limitations exist ranging from lack of large-scale clinical data to the recurring theme that psoriasis dosing typically doesn’t cut it, making access to said medications even more difficult. Investigators in this study addresses both gaps very effectively, and I for one welcome the implications and hopeful regulatory impact with open arms.”

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Kimball disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Sanova, Pfizer, Novartis, and other companies.

When administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, secukinumab was effective at improving signs and symptoms of moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in adults up to 52 weeks, results from two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials showed.

The findings build on week 16 data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS, and were presented at the 2022 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. In those studies, at 16 weeks, 42%-46% of patients achieved an HS Clinical Response (HiSCR) – the primary outcome measure in both trials. For the most recent analysis, which was published in The Lancet, investigators found that, at 52 weeks, 56.4% of patients in SUNSHINE and 65% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks achieved a HiSCR, compared with 56.3% of patients in SUNSHINE and 62.2% of patients in SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks.

“This is great news for people with HS: it improves our knowledge about how to best treat patients today and leads us to new areas that will help us treat them even better in the future,” Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, the lead investigator for both trials, said in an interview. “Dermatologists have been using biologics for decades. This data provides clinicians with information they can use to easily expand their HS management repertoire to include secukinumab.”

To date, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab is the only approved biologic therapy approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS, in people aged 12 years and older.

The two trials were conducted in 40 countries, with SUNSHINE enrolling 541 patients, and SUNRISE enrolling 543. Patients in each study were randomized to one of three experimental arms: secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks after five weekly loading doses; secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks after five weekly loading doses; placebo dose every 2 weeks after five weekly placebo doses. The mean age was 37 years, about 55% were female, and about 76% were White (about 9% were Black and about 10% were Asian). Dr. Kimball, investigator at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors observed that the group that received secukinumab every 4 weeks did not meet the primary endpoint in the SUNSHINE trial, but it was met in the SUNRISE trial. “Research and subgroup analyses are required and might improve our understanding of the effect of patient characteristics on treatment response and further refine the dosing recommendations for different populations,” they wrote.

In a pooled analysis, 55.2% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks had a reduction in pain as measured by the Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, compared with 53% of patients from SUNSHINE and SUNRISE who received secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks. The most common adverse events up to week 16 in both trials were headache, nasopharyngitis, and hidradenitis; no deaths occurred.

“One limitation of most studies in HS is that the placebo-controlled period is short, so the data obtained after that time is harder to interpret,” Dr. Kimball said in an interview. “In my experience, optimizing treatment can take almost a year and I hope we will see longer controlled periods in future studies.” Another limitation of the studies she acknowledged was a modest imbalance with respect to disease severity between the treatment groups at baseline. “It was a little surprising that some imbalances in the characteristics of randomized subjects in different arms of the study impacted efficacy levels,” she said. “We’ll need to continue to identify how to match patients and dosing regimens to get the best results.”

According to a press release from Novartis, trial results have been submitted to regulatory authorities in Europe and the United States, and decisions are expected in 2023. If approved, secukinumab will be the first and only IL-17 inhibitor for the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, described HS as “an extraordinarily disabling, painful, deforming condition for which we only have one [Food and Drug Administration]–approved systemic therapy, requiring us to wear our ‘off-label bandit’ name tags proudly to tackle therapeutic challenges.

“Anecdotally,” he said, “we dabble with off-label biologics indicated for psoriasis in this setting, though limitations exist ranging from lack of large-scale clinical data to the recurring theme that psoriasis dosing typically doesn’t cut it, making access to said medications even more difficult. Investigators in this study addresses both gaps very effectively, and I for one welcome the implications and hopeful regulatory impact with open arms.”

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Kimball disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Friedman reported financial relationships with Sanova, Pfizer, Novartis, and other companies.

SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

Real-world, population-based data suggest that the discontinuation rates for biosimilars prescribed to treat inflammatory rheumatic diseases are similar to those for their corresponding originator biologics, according to a study of patients in British Columbia who were required to switch to biosimilars.

“The decision to mandate use of biosimilars provided an ideal context for a natural experiment,” Diane Lacaille, MD, chair in arthritis research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, explained in her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

On the basis of the real-world data, which was collected before and after a province-wide requirement to use biosimilars in place of originator biologics, there was no major difference in discontinuation rates, an outcome that Dr. Lacaille characterized as “a surrogate for both efficacy and safety.”

In the 2019 rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, biosimilars are advocated for addressing the high cost of biologics based on evidence of efficacy and safety comparable with originator biologics. According to one of the coauthors of those guidelines, Tom W. J. Huizinga, MD, PhD, head of rheumatology at Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, there is reasonable confidence in biosimilars as an adequate substitute for originator drugs, but real-world data are welcome.

“Real-world data provide different information than controlled trials and long-term data as well, so these [Canadian findings] are useful to support the data from [randomized controlled trials],” Dr. Huizinga said in an interview. He was not involved in the Canadian study.
 

Survivorship evaluated after switch to biosimilars

In British Columbia, biosimilars were mandated province-wide for new prescriptions of infliximab and etanercept in June 2017. In 2019, the mandate was extended to patients already taking originator infliximab (Remicade) and originator etanercept (Enbrel). Since that time, the mandate for biosimilars has also been applied to adalimumab (Humira). For the comparison of infliximab and etanercept originators with their biosimilars, Dr. Lacaille and associates compared survivorship for the 3 years after the policy change, when patients were on biosimilars, with the 3 years prior to the change, when patients were on the originators. They compared survivorship with originator adalimumab with its biosimilars for prior to and after the switch.

”People were followed from anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] initiation until discontinuation for any reason,” reported Dr. Lacaille, who said data were censored for death and moving out of the province. In British Columbia, where there is universal health care, all dispensed medications can be tracked. The definition of anti-TNF discontinuation in this study was no prescription renewal for at least 6 months.

The follow-up was censored at March 2, 2020, to avoid the potential impact of COVID-19 on antirheumatic drug use. Discontinuation was standardized for the comparison of originator with biosimilar drugs as rates per 100 person-years. Statistical adjustments were made for potential confounders.

The researchers compared 1,312 patients on etanercept and 827 on a biosimilar of it, 230 patients on infliximab and 271 on a biosimilar of it, and 1,773 on adalimumab and 2,213 on a biosimilar of it. The indication was RA in approximately 60% of those on etanercept or a biosimilar and 50% of those on infliximab or adalimumab and their biosimilars. More than half of the remaining patients had indications for psoriatic arthritis, and the rest had ankylosing spondylitis.
 

No differences reach statistical significance

On the basis of discontinuation rates per 100 person-years, etanercept and its biosimilars performed almost identically (37.10 vs. 37.02, respectively). Although the discontinuation rate per 100 person-years was lower on infliximab than a biosimilar of it (29.97 vs. 37.96), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .076).

For adalimumab, the discontinuation rate was also lower on the originator drug than a biosimilar of it (32.92 vs. 36.36), but, again, this difference was also insignificant (P = .56).

When the discontinuation data were evaluated on the basis of a Cox model involving a propensity weight overlap, the univariate and the multivariable analyses found that the biosimilars had similar risks for discontinuation. Univariate analysis revealed hazard ratios for discontinuation of the biosimilar relative to the originator were 0.98 (P = .783) for etanercept, 1.17 (P = .242) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .09) for adalimumab. In the multivariable model, adjusted HRs for discontinuation were about the same for each of the biosimilars relative to the originator: 0.98 (P = .807) for etanercept, 1.19 (P = .183) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .089) for adalimumab.

Relative to previously published direct comparisons, this real-world analysis and its duration of follow-up address the limitations of formal trials. In a 2020 BMJ meta-analysis of published data from 45 trials comparing biosimilar with originator drugs in patients with RA who had failed methotrexate, the authors found only “minor differences in harms and benefits,” but they cautioned that the analysis was “hampered by a lack of long-term direct comparisons.”

In an interview, Dr. Huizinga noted that a systematic review of adalimumab biosimilars that he led 2 years ago showed that they perform comparably with the originator biologics. This and other published studies have consistently shown “that there is no difference between biologics and originators.”

Dr. Lacaille disclosed financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, and Viatris. Dr. Huizinga disclosed financial relationships with Abbott, Ablynx, Biotest, Bioscience, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, MycoMed, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, and Zydus.

Real-world, population-based data suggest that the discontinuation rates for biosimilars prescribed to treat inflammatory rheumatic diseases are similar to those for their corresponding originator biologics, according to a study of patients in British Columbia who were required to switch to biosimilars.

“The decision to mandate use of biosimilars provided an ideal context for a natural experiment,” Diane Lacaille, MD, chair in arthritis research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, explained in her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

On the basis of the real-world data, which was collected before and after a province-wide requirement to use biosimilars in place of originator biologics, there was no major difference in discontinuation rates, an outcome that Dr. Lacaille characterized as “a surrogate for both efficacy and safety.”

In the 2019 rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, biosimilars are advocated for addressing the high cost of biologics based on evidence of efficacy and safety comparable with originator biologics. According to one of the coauthors of those guidelines, Tom W. J. Huizinga, MD, PhD, head of rheumatology at Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, there is reasonable confidence in biosimilars as an adequate substitute for originator drugs, but real-world data are welcome.

“Real-world data provide different information than controlled trials and long-term data as well, so these [Canadian findings] are useful to support the data from [randomized controlled trials],” Dr. Huizinga said in an interview. He was not involved in the Canadian study.
 

Survivorship evaluated after switch to biosimilars

In British Columbia, biosimilars were mandated province-wide for new prescriptions of infliximab and etanercept in June 2017. In 2019, the mandate was extended to patients already taking originator infliximab (Remicade) and originator etanercept (Enbrel). Since that time, the mandate for biosimilars has also been applied to adalimumab (Humira). For the comparison of infliximab and etanercept originators with their biosimilars, Dr. Lacaille and associates compared survivorship for the 3 years after the policy change, when patients were on biosimilars, with the 3 years prior to the change, when patients were on the originators. They compared survivorship with originator adalimumab with its biosimilars for prior to and after the switch.

”People were followed from anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] initiation until discontinuation for any reason,” reported Dr. Lacaille, who said data were censored for death and moving out of the province. In British Columbia, where there is universal health care, all dispensed medications can be tracked. The definition of anti-TNF discontinuation in this study was no prescription renewal for at least 6 months.

The follow-up was censored at March 2, 2020, to avoid the potential impact of COVID-19 on antirheumatic drug use. Discontinuation was standardized for the comparison of originator with biosimilar drugs as rates per 100 person-years. Statistical adjustments were made for potential confounders.

The researchers compared 1,312 patients on etanercept and 827 on a biosimilar of it, 230 patients on infliximab and 271 on a biosimilar of it, and 1,773 on adalimumab and 2,213 on a biosimilar of it. The indication was RA in approximately 60% of those on etanercept or a biosimilar and 50% of those on infliximab or adalimumab and their biosimilars. More than half of the remaining patients had indications for psoriatic arthritis, and the rest had ankylosing spondylitis.
 

No differences reach statistical significance

On the basis of discontinuation rates per 100 person-years, etanercept and its biosimilars performed almost identically (37.10 vs. 37.02, respectively). Although the discontinuation rate per 100 person-years was lower on infliximab than a biosimilar of it (29.97 vs. 37.96), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .076).

For adalimumab, the discontinuation rate was also lower on the originator drug than a biosimilar of it (32.92 vs. 36.36), but, again, this difference was also insignificant (P = .56).

When the discontinuation data were evaluated on the basis of a Cox model involving a propensity weight overlap, the univariate and the multivariable analyses found that the biosimilars had similar risks for discontinuation. Univariate analysis revealed hazard ratios for discontinuation of the biosimilar relative to the originator were 0.98 (P = .783) for etanercept, 1.17 (P = .242) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .09) for adalimumab. In the multivariable model, adjusted HRs for discontinuation were about the same for each of the biosimilars relative to the originator: 0.98 (P = .807) for etanercept, 1.19 (P = .183) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .089) for adalimumab.

Relative to previously published direct comparisons, this real-world analysis and its duration of follow-up address the limitations of formal trials. In a 2020 BMJ meta-analysis of published data from 45 trials comparing biosimilar with originator drugs in patients with RA who had failed methotrexate, the authors found only “minor differences in harms and benefits,” but they cautioned that the analysis was “hampered by a lack of long-term direct comparisons.”

In an interview, Dr. Huizinga noted that a systematic review of adalimumab biosimilars that he led 2 years ago showed that they perform comparably with the originator biologics. This and other published studies have consistently shown “that there is no difference between biologics and originators.”

Dr. Lacaille disclosed financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, and Viatris. Dr. Huizinga disclosed financial relationships with Abbott, Ablynx, Biotest, Bioscience, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, MycoMed, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, and Zydus.

Real-world, population-based data suggest that the discontinuation rates for biosimilars prescribed to treat inflammatory rheumatic diseases are similar to those for their corresponding originator biologics, according to a study of patients in British Columbia who were required to switch to biosimilars.

“The decision to mandate use of biosimilars provided an ideal context for a natural experiment,” Diane Lacaille, MD, chair in arthritis research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, explained in her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

On the basis of the real-world data, which was collected before and after a province-wide requirement to use biosimilars in place of originator biologics, there was no major difference in discontinuation rates, an outcome that Dr. Lacaille characterized as “a surrogate for both efficacy and safety.”

In the 2019 rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, biosimilars are advocated for addressing the high cost of biologics based on evidence of efficacy and safety comparable with originator biologics. According to one of the coauthors of those guidelines, Tom W. J. Huizinga, MD, PhD, head of rheumatology at Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, there is reasonable confidence in biosimilars as an adequate substitute for originator drugs, but real-world data are welcome.

“Real-world data provide different information than controlled trials and long-term data as well, so these [Canadian findings] are useful to support the data from [randomized controlled trials],” Dr. Huizinga said in an interview. He was not involved in the Canadian study.
 

Survivorship evaluated after switch to biosimilars

In British Columbia, biosimilars were mandated province-wide for new prescriptions of infliximab and etanercept in June 2017. In 2019, the mandate was extended to patients already taking originator infliximab (Remicade) and originator etanercept (Enbrel). Since that time, the mandate for biosimilars has also been applied to adalimumab (Humira). For the comparison of infliximab and etanercept originators with their biosimilars, Dr. Lacaille and associates compared survivorship for the 3 years after the policy change, when patients were on biosimilars, with the 3 years prior to the change, when patients were on the originators. They compared survivorship with originator adalimumab with its biosimilars for prior to and after the switch.

”People were followed from anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] initiation until discontinuation for any reason,” reported Dr. Lacaille, who said data were censored for death and moving out of the province. In British Columbia, where there is universal health care, all dispensed medications can be tracked. The definition of anti-TNF discontinuation in this study was no prescription renewal for at least 6 months.

The follow-up was censored at March 2, 2020, to avoid the potential impact of COVID-19 on antirheumatic drug use. Discontinuation was standardized for the comparison of originator with biosimilar drugs as rates per 100 person-years. Statistical adjustments were made for potential confounders.

The researchers compared 1,312 patients on etanercept and 827 on a biosimilar of it, 230 patients on infliximab and 271 on a biosimilar of it, and 1,773 on adalimumab and 2,213 on a biosimilar of it. The indication was RA in approximately 60% of those on etanercept or a biosimilar and 50% of those on infliximab or adalimumab and their biosimilars. More than half of the remaining patients had indications for psoriatic arthritis, and the rest had ankylosing spondylitis.
 

No differences reach statistical significance

On the basis of discontinuation rates per 100 person-years, etanercept and its biosimilars performed almost identically (37.10 vs. 37.02, respectively). Although the discontinuation rate per 100 person-years was lower on infliximab than a biosimilar of it (29.97 vs. 37.96), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .076).

For adalimumab, the discontinuation rate was also lower on the originator drug than a biosimilar of it (32.92 vs. 36.36), but, again, this difference was also insignificant (P = .56).

When the discontinuation data were evaluated on the basis of a Cox model involving a propensity weight overlap, the univariate and the multivariable analyses found that the biosimilars had similar risks for discontinuation. Univariate analysis revealed hazard ratios for discontinuation of the biosimilar relative to the originator were 0.98 (P = .783) for etanercept, 1.17 (P = .242) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .09) for adalimumab. In the multivariable model, adjusted HRs for discontinuation were about the same for each of the biosimilars relative to the originator: 0.98 (P = .807) for etanercept, 1.19 (P = .183) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .089) for adalimumab.

Relative to previously published direct comparisons, this real-world analysis and its duration of follow-up address the limitations of formal trials. In a 2020 BMJ meta-analysis of published data from 45 trials comparing biosimilar with originator drugs in patients with RA who had failed methotrexate, the authors found only “minor differences in harms and benefits,” but they cautioned that the analysis was “hampered by a lack of long-term direct comparisons.”

In an interview, Dr. Huizinga noted that a systematic review of adalimumab biosimilars that he led 2 years ago showed that they perform comparably with the originator biologics. This and other published studies have consistently shown “that there is no difference between biologics and originators.”

Dr. Lacaille disclosed financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, and Viatris. Dr. Huizinga disclosed financial relationships with Abbott, Ablynx, Biotest, Bioscience, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, MycoMed, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, and Zydus.

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.